Noah Berens1, David Wasserman1, Paul Wakim2, Talia Bernhard1, Scott Y H Kim3. 1. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Biostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Service, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 3. Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: scott.kim@nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physician-assisted death (PAD) for people with nonterminal illnesses (PAD-NT) is a controversial practice legal in some countries and increasingly debated in others, including the United States. A major concern about legalization of PAD-NT is that a lack of resources may drive some with mental illnesses or physical disabilities to seek PAD. OBJECTIVE: To assess US public opinion on PAD-NT under conditions of resource limitation. METHODS: The authors surveyed 2139 US adults matched to the US population in sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, political affiliation, and income. After giving their opinions regarding terminal PAD and PAD-NT in response to traditional PAD survey questions, respondents were randomly presented one of 4 scenarios of persons with nonterminal conditions requesting PAD-NT who lacked adequate resources to maintain their quality of life. The type of resources lacking (social or health care) and medical condition (mental or physical disability) were varied. Respondents' views regarding PAD-NT for the scenario specifically and legalization generally were then reassessed. RESULTS: At baseline, 55.4% of respondents supported legalizing terminal PAD, and 36.9% supported legalizing PAD-NT. After analyzing the scenarios, 28.2% (range 18.6%-39.7%) agreed/strongly agreed with legalizing PAD-NT generally and 23.7% (15.2%-33.7%) agreed/strongly agreed with PAD-NT for the instance depicted, with mental illness scenarios receiving much lower support; respondents' comments suggest devaluation of life with physical disability versus with mental illness. Being politically liberal, not religious, and assigned physical disability scenarios were associated with greater support for PAD-NT in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of the US public supports PAD-NT in the context of inadequate resources, with much lower support for PAD-NT for mental illness than for physical disability, suggesting that PAD-NT policy debates and future research should address the issue of whether sufficient resources must be available to potential requestors of PAD-NT.
BACKGROUND: Physician-assisted death (PAD) for people with nonterminal illnesses (PAD-NT) is a controversial practice legal in some countries and increasingly debated in others, including the United States. A major concern about legalization of PAD-NT is that a lack of resources may drive some with mental illnesses or physical disabilities to seek PAD. OBJECTIVE: To assess US public opinion on PAD-NT under conditions of resource limitation. METHODS: The authors surveyed 2139 US adults matched to the US population in sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, political affiliation, and income. After giving their opinions regarding terminal PAD and PAD-NT in response to traditional PAD survey questions, respondents were randomly presented one of 4 scenarios of persons with nonterminal conditions requesting PAD-NT who lacked adequate resources to maintain their quality of life. The type of resources lacking (social or health care) and medical condition (mental or physical disability) were varied. Respondents' views regarding PAD-NT for the scenario specifically and legalization generally were then reassessed. RESULTS: At baseline, 55.4% of respondents supported legalizing terminal PAD, and 36.9% supported legalizing PAD-NT. After analyzing the scenarios, 28.2% (range 18.6%-39.7%) agreed/strongly agreed with legalizing PAD-NT generally and 23.7% (15.2%-33.7%) agreed/strongly agreed with PAD-NT for the instance depicted, with mental illness scenarios receiving much lower support; respondents' comments suggest devaluation of life with physical disability versus with mental illness. Being politically liberal, not religious, and assigned physical disability scenarios were associated with greater support for PAD-NT in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of the US public supports PAD-NT in the context of inadequate resources, with much lower support for PAD-NT for mental illness than for physical disability, suggesting that PAD-NT policy debates and future research should address the issue of whether sufficient resources must be available to potential requestors of PAD-NT.
Authors: Heather F McClintock; Jibby E Kurichi; Frances K Barg; Alice Krueger; Patrice M Colletti; Krizia A Wearing; Hillary R Bogner Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2017-12-30 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Kirsten Evenblij; H Roeline W Pasman; Agnes van der Heide; Johannes J M van Delden; Bregje D Onwuteaka-Philipsen Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 2.652